Analysis of different operation methods in inguinal hernia treatment and comparative study on the quality of life of patients

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.02.020

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the effect of transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) and open tension-free hernia repair in inguinal hernia treatment and intervention on patients' quality of life.

Methods

60 cases of inguinal hernia patients treated in Lishui District People's hospital were selected and divided into two groups: TAPP group (n=26) and open operation group (n=34) according to the different treatment methods. The surgical indexes, complications and recurrence were compared between the two groups. All were followed up for 3 months, and the difference of quality of life score between the two groups was compared.

Results

The intraoperative bleeding volume and average maximum body temperature in TAPP group were lower than those in open operation group (P<0.01), the time of getting out of bed, exhaust after operation and hospitalization were shorter than those of open operation group (P<0.01), but the cost of hospitalization increased compared with the open operation group (P<0.01), there were no significant differences in the operation time and recurrence rate between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of total complications in TAPP group was lower than that in open operation group (P<0.01) and the scores of SF-36, mRS and BI in TAPP group were significantly higher than those in open operation group (P<0.01).

Conclusion

TAPP in the treatment of inguinal hernia can accelerate the recovery of prognosis, reduce the incidence of complications and improve the quality of life, but the operation time is longer and cost is higher.

Key words: Hernia, inguinal, Herniorrhaphy, Prognosis, Quality of life

Xiaogang Cao, Nengqi Cao. Analysis of different operation methods in inguinal hernia treatment and comparative study on the quality of life of patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(02): 176-178.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.02.020

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V13/I02/176

Figures/Tables 3

References 10

[1]	张云，郝晓晖，李健文, 等. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床疗效[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2016, 15(10): 967-971.
[2]	Patterson A L, Thomas B, Franklin A, et al. Transabdominal Preperitoneal Repair of Spigelian Hernia[J]. Am Surg, 2016, 82(1): 18-19.
[3]	中华医学会外科学分会疝和腹壁外科学组. 成人腹股沟疝股疝手术治疗方案(修订稿)[J]. 腹部外科, 2004, 17(1): 126-126.
[4]	Muschalla F, Schwarz J, Bittner R. Effectivity of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair(TAPP) in daily clinical practice: early and long-term result[J]. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(11): 1-10.
[5]	叶小勇，张帆，陈新岐, 等. 腹腔镜无张力疝修补术治疗老年双侧腹股沟疝32例分析[J]. 贵州医药, 2015, 39(7): 609-610.
[6]	杨栋，吴晓明，刘丰, 等. 腹股沟疝腹腔镜下修补术与无张力修补术应用于老年患者的综合疗效研究[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2016, 16(18): 3492-3495.
[7]	Sarakatsianou C, Georgopoulou S, Baloyiannis I, et al. Spinal versus general anesthesia for transabdominal preperitoneal(TAPP) repair of inguinal hernia: Interim analysis of a controlled randomized trial[J]. Am J Surg, 2017, 214(2): 239-245.
[8]	Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E, et al. A Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal(TAPP) vs open lichtenstein repair for bilateral inguinal hernias[J]. J Am Colof Surg, 2016, 223(4): 18-18.
[9]	Tokumura H, Nomura R, Saijo F, et al. Tumescent TAPP: laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair after the preperitoneal tumescent injection of diluted lidocaine and epinephrine saline solution and carbon dioxide gas[J]. Surg Today, 2017, 47(1): 52-57.
[10]	Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Baynielsen M, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients[J]. Hernia, 2014, 13(4): 151-163.

组别	例数	手术时间(min)	术中出血量(mL)	下床活动时间(h)	术后排气时间(h)	术后平均最高体温(℃)	住院时间(d)	住院费用(元)	术后复发[例(%)]
TAPP组	26	49.56±12.34	16.47±5.36	23.05±5.12	42.13±5.36	37.45±0.56	3.03±0.62	9 856.47±1 206.24	0(0.00)
开放手术组	34	46.32±8.36	22.23±4.86	50.13±9.33	53.64±4.55	37.78±0.62	5.53±0.56	8 846.82±1 063.25	3(8.82)
P值		>0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	>0.05

组别	例数	手术时间(min)	术中出血量(mL)	下床活动时间(h)	术后排气时间(h)	术后平均最高体温(℃)	住院时间(d)	住院费用(元)	术后复发[例(%)]
TAPP组	26	49.56±12.34	16.47±5.36	23.05±5.12	42.13±5.36	37.45±0.56	3.03±0.62	9 856.47±1 206.24	0(0.00)
开放手术组	34	46.32±8.36	22.23±4.86	50.13±9.33	53.64±4.55	37.78±0.62	5.53±0.56	8 846.82±1 063.25	3(8.82)
P值		>0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	>0.05

组别	例数	尿潴留	血肿	血清肿	肠梗阻	肠道损伤	切口感染	慢性疼痛	总发生率(%)
TAPP组	26	1(3.85)	1(3.85)	1(3.85)	0	0	0	0	11.54^a
开放手术组	34	3(8.82)	2(5.88)	1(2.94)	1(2.94)	0	2(5.88)	3(8.82)	35.29

组别	例数	尿潴留	血肿	血清肿	肠梗阻	肠道损伤	切口感染	慢性疼痛	总发生率(%)
TAPP组	26	1(3.85)	1(3.85)	1(3.85)	0	0	0	0	11.54^a
开放手术组	34	3(8.82)	2(5.88)	1(2.94)	1(2.94)	0	2(5.88)	3(8.82)	35.29

组别	例数	SF-36	mRS	BI
TAPP组	26	83.24±7.67	84.65±7.98	83.34±6.79
开放手术组	34	75.15±5.84	73.42±5.87	76.25±5.19
P值		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export